Some swearing near the end *NSFW

Invocations (nsfw) cannot be called by dmac because dmac is not privileged - sorry.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

*nsfw

This video has been flagged as being Not Suitable For Work - declared nsfw by dag.

I agree with him that capitalisms is shit because it doesnt take into account the human factor of greed. However he falls victim tot he black and white argument. If its not one it must be the other. No because socialism IS good in theory no matter how much it pisses him off when people say that because it also doesnt take into account the human factor. Mainly how humans want to be different and to stand out, which leads to feelings of greed, envy, jealously. Which also drive a work ethic to out do the other person so you can have more and bam you have an uneven class system again. So yes in THEORY its good, if humans were merely computers who do the logical thing at all times for the good of society. But we all know we dont lol.

It isn't about greed, it isn't about feeling and ethics or human nature at all - it's about the mechanics of money i.e. capital and labor.

@6:42 "There are A bunch of different ways you could hypothesize about how to do this. The specifics are not important."

What? How you would implement socialism has everything to do with whether or not you could pull it off. The specifics are very important.

FAIL

alright, so... one factory employs 5 workers, with 1 capitalist... They add new equipment, two workers now produce the same amount of goods. What he does not mention is that for every 'generation' of equipment, production companies usually have to hire more technical people to maintain the equipment (it doesn't take care of itself). So, while it might fire 3 people, it will hire one maintenance personnel. So, there are two extra bodies in the unemployed pool.

Then the investors come in, build more factories. To make things simple, let's say that one of the new factories is the same size as the existing one, and one is half the size. This means that there are two more capitalists, two more maintenance workers, and three more laborers.

If you're paying attention, you will notice that the competition has created 1 more labor position than was available before the rise in efficiency, two more technical positions, and two more capitalist positions.

Now, I'm not saying that this example is VALID. I'm saying that the example that he used ends up helping society, rather than harming it, as he suggests.

Our brilliant teacher here also forgets that someone out there has to create the new technologies that are used. Advancements in technologies don't appear out of mid-air.

I also like how he mistakes the voice of Corporations for the voice of Capitalism. Capitalism is about more than just corporations, it's about the entire society. It's called vote with your dollars. If you want to see capitalism at work, look towards your nearest union, or search sift for 'carrot mob'.


Now, don't get me wrong, I think that there will be a time where Capitalism no longer provides any benefit to society, but IMHO, that's 2-300 years from now. Maybe the world will switch over then, but if we do, it'll be because of all of the advancements that only Capitalism could have provided.

>> ^sroemerm:
@6:42 There are A bunch of different ways you could hypothesize about how to do this. The specifics are not important."
What? How you would implement socialism has everything to do with whether or not you could pull it off. The specifics are very important.


If you want specifics, a good starting point is either Michael Albert's and Professor Robin Hahnel's writings on Parecon, or David Schweickart's writings on Economic Democracy.

I agree that the specifics are important. You can't criticise a flawed economic model effectively without proposing an alternative system embodying more beneficial and balanced ideology.

And what exactly are the so called benefits of capitalism?

Luxury for the top 5% of the population?
A historical HIGH in poverty and starvation, worse than anything seen before. I mean, the crusades, the jihads and all the historical calamities are horse-shit compared to the ugly mess thats going on today.

Capitalism doesn't even allow men to be slaves (which they de facto are) A slave had value in himself, but a worker has none, its only his labor that has value, and this, unlike a slaves, can be bought and then discarded, creating a vicious cycle. A slave WAS property, but a worker is even less - only his disembodied TIME has any worth.

And even in developed countries - what has capitalism provided for the average man?
Clinical depression, loss of meaning, a sedentary lifestyle filled with neurosis, stress and fear.

My, this really is a rorschach test of a video, isn't it?

>> ^bluecliff:
And what exactly are the so called benefits of capitalism?
Luxury for the top 5% of the population?
A historical HIGH in poverty and starvation, worse than anything seen before. I mean, the crusades, the jihads and all the historical calamities are horse-shit compared to the ugly mess thats going on today.
Capitalism doesn't even allow men to be slaves (which they de facto are) A slave had value in himself, but a worker has none, its only his labor that has value, and this, unlike a slaves, can be bought and then discarded, creating a vicious cycle. A slave WAS property, but a worker is even less - only his disembodied TIME has any worth.
And even in developed countries - what has capitalism provided for the average man?
Clinical depression, loss of meaning, a sedentary lifestyle filled with neurosis, stress and fear.

This seems like an overreaction, especially when suggesting that a return to slavery would somehow be better than our current iteration of nihilistic wage-slavery.

As for the average man in developed countries, capitalism has provided: cellphones, television, cheap computers, the internet, cheap fast food, cheap sweets, and investment banking to let you buy a home or start a business.

>> ^hatsix:
Now, don't get me wrong, I think that there will be a time where Capitalism no longer provides any benefit to society, but IMHO, that's 2-300 years from now. Maybe the world will switch over then, but if we do, it'll be because of all of the advancements that only Capitalism could have provided.

Yes, advancements only capitalism could've provided, like bottled water, service contracts, marketing, cigarettes with extra nicotine, energy monopolies, operating system monopolies, and healthcare and education costs that increase every year.

So, capitalism does good, and bad...at the same time.

My read is that capitalism can do wonderous things, but it can also do hideous self-destructive things. The trick is to try to channel the good, competitive, profit-driven innovation into things that actually do good for the society, while limiting it's ability to be parasitic to the society, selling harmful or worthless products to people who find them attractive for one reason or another (think cigarettes and bottled water).

I think too many people in the U.S. worship capitalism like a religion; they feel it must be adhered to absolutely, or "bad things" will happen. It's like saying selective breeding is obviously ineffective and morally wrong, because Evolution Must Decide which cows reproduce, and which ones do not.

I get that there's a "voting with your dollars" effect in play with capitalism, but consider this: when you buy clothes at Wal-Mart, do you care about the condition of the workers in the factory who made it, or do you just care about that low-low price?

It's impossible for anything to be good in theory and bad in practice.

Capitalism is not a philosophy or an ideal, it is not a thing to be desired - it is simply a moral fact.

Each person owns their own life; through use of that life they may generate property; property may be freely exchanged or given away.

this guy needs to keep studying...he only understands about half of it.

I've read a lot of Marx and he's ****ing unreadable, no wonder few had read it, that his though has been distorted and that some of you here are talking through their hat

N.B.: I upvote thy comment Davido cause I thought thou were talking about gorillaman but thou still right about the vid.

*dead

This published video has been declared non-functional; embed code must be fixed within 2 days or it will be sent to the dead pool - declared dead by Johnald_Chaffinch.

a replacement : http://www.boreme.com/boreme/funny-2008/marxism-101-p1.php